XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 10:09:36 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >On 22-December-2014 5:12 AM, R. Dean wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 12/21/2014 11:14 AM, Free Lunch wrote:   
   >>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:51:59 -0500, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 12/8/2014 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   >>>>> On 8/12/2014 12:24 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 14:38:52 +1100, Sylvia Else   
   >>>>>>    
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>> On 1/12/2014 1:28 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>         Yes, why do billions of people believe for absolutely no   
   >>>>>>>>>> reason?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> It's a question that's been asked many times here.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>        Has it ever been given a respectable answer? If so, what was   
   >>>>>>>> it? Here's a   
   >>>>>>>> question that's been asked a number of times, but so far has never   
   >>>>>>>> been given a   
   >>>>>>>> respectable answer:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I think a respectable answer, or at least hypothesis, is that it's   
   >>>>>>> explained by a mixture of human nature and the indoctrination of   
   >>>>>>> children. This is not to say that it is necessarily the right   
   >>>>>>> answer,   
   >>>>>>> but as long as it remains a reasonable possibility, nothing much   
   >>>>>>> can be   
   >>>>>>> deduced from the fact that many people believe.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>        WHAT type of evidence do atheists think there "should be"?   
   >>>>>>>> WHERE do atheists   
   >>>>>>>> think the evidence they beg for "should be"? WHY do atheists think   
   >>>>>>>> it "should   
   >>>>>>>> be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with whatever particular   
   >>>>>>>> evidence   
   >>>>>>>> they keep whining about?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> It's hard to know, a priori, what kind of evidence there might be.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>       You people seem to believe there should be some. Let's start   
   >>>>>> with   
   >>>>>> why you   
   >>>>>> think that is, and maybe from there we can get to what you think it   
   >>>>>> should be.   
   >>>>>> Try to figure out why you think there should be some and where you   
   >>>>>> think it   
   >>>>>> should be.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It is not my position that there should be some. My position is   
   >>>>> that if   
   >>>>> there is none, then there's no more reason to believe in God than   
   >>>>> there   
   >>>>> is a reason to believe in anything else for which there's no evidence.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> For many people there is evidence of a design, which implies a   
   >>>> designer.   
   >>>   
   >>> Calling something evidence does not make it evidence. The believers want   
   >>> to believe that their god exists and created. Facts have nothing to do   
   >>> with it.   
   >> >   
   >> Hello Mr. Free!   
   >   
   >You mean Dr. No?..  "no evidence.. no evidence.. no evidence.."   
      
   You are the ones with no evidence. Not only that, but there is evidence   
   that some of what you believe is false. Your religious beliefs appear to   
   rely on a refusal to accept evidence or care about it.   
      
   >> I'm glad to hear from you.   
   >> >   
   >> I can't deny that there are people who want to believe in a higher power   
   >> that is in control of events when they themselves are, to a large   
   >> extent at the mercy of things and events which they have no control. And   
   >> you are right in that they do not rely on facts, but rather faith. But   
   >> by the same token there are those who I suspect do _not_ want there to   
   >> be a God to which they are accountable.   
   >   
   >and they have faith in their belief that there is no God being correct   
      
   And you have, once again, falsely characterized atheism. How many more   
   times will you feel the need to offer such a falsehood?   
      
   >>>> For others, perhaps even you, there can _never_ be any acceptable   
   >>>> evidence. In each case a preconditioned mindset may be involved.   
   >>>> For some very personal reasons.   
   >>>   
   >>> You cheerfully ignore those who are unpersuaded because no facts support   
   >>> the designer hypothesis.   
   >> >   
   >> Perhaps they are just _unwilling_ to accept the possibility that there   
   >> are facts which tend to lend support for the design hypothesis.   
   >   
   >Dr. No is certainly unwilling to accept that there are reasons to   
   >believe God exists (whether it's a fact or not)   
      
   You have never shown us that there are any reasons to believe that any   
   deity exists, let alone that the deity you call God exists.   
      
   >>>>> So, from my perspective, if you want to say that there's a better   
   >>>>> reason   
   >>>>> to believe in God than to believe in something else, then you'll   
   >>>>> have to   
   >>>>> provide some evidence.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> This is curious.  If you had such evidence, would you then believe? No,   
   >>>> you would not. If you had irrefutable, empirical evidence then you   
   >>>> would   
   >>>> _know_, consequently belief would be unnecessary.   
   >>>   
   >>> And why is your god such a pathetic thing that it has to hide all   
   >>> evidence of its existence?   
   >> >   
   >> Here again Mr. Free, If one does not want to see evidence, then he is   
   >> able to find alternative explanations for virtually any fact or   
   >> observation.   
   >   
   >"there are none so blind as those who will not see"   
      
   You have chosen to be blind to the limitations of your religion, the   
   falsehoods inherent in it, the failures of your scriptures.   
      
      
   You preach a silly religion to those who are not credulous.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)